| |||||||||||||
Mitigation strategyMitigation strategyPosted Feb 2, 2008 4:48 UTC (Sat) by ikm (subscriber, #493)In reply to: Mitigation strategy by man_ls Parent article: LCA: Bruce Schneier on the two sides of security
People are just dependent on other people -- is this news, really?
(Log in to post comments)
Mitigation strategy Posted Feb 2, 2008 12:19 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Not sure what you mean, but this has nothing to do with being dependent. What is really news is that we are so bad at evaluating danger. Schneier has posted innumerable examples, let me give you one more: many people are afraid of elevators, and certainly every time an elevator hits a small bump we all shudder. However, the rational risk is close to null: how many people do you know have died in an elevator? The annual death toll is ludicrous.If we were completely rational we would shudder every time we got into a car -- a lot of people die every day in one of those. Our physical ways of evaluating danger are fit for a bunch of monkeys wandering in a savannah, but so outdated for today's world that they are funny. (In fact there is a whole sector of the economy based on this fact: amusement parks, where you feel fear for fun.) You can thus imagine how well suited people are to evaluate computer dangers: very badly. Extensive training and experience is required just to perform rational assessments.
Mitigation strategy Posted Feb 3, 2008 2:58 UTC (Sun) by ikm (subscriber, #493) [Link] If we're talking about fear here, we're always talking about dependency, because fear is always a result of being dependent. If we're talking about inabilities to perform assessments correctly, they are probably because of the ignorance, pure lack of information, or disinformation, which can also be a result of being dependent (on someone who does all the assessments instead of you), or on some other conditions. I would note that anyway, I think our physical ways of evaluating danger are still much better than just a bunch of worldwide statistical crap, because instead of believing in some generic and unconditional statistical facts, we can take many things into account which are special for each situation. E.g, the fact that the driver is sober or drunk makes much difference, don't you think? So maybe instead of thinking about the annual death rate, you should see how good the driver is, what kind of shape the car's in, and so on? The fear of elevators can indeed exist just because of the inability to assess its state (what's there under the hood anyway? do you know how this crap works? is it really safe? have you ever seen the internals? many questions. here we're totally dependent on a good will of the people who maintain this elevator, hence we have fears).
Mitigation strategy Posted Feb 3, 2008 12:37 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] If we're talking about fear here, we're always talking about dependency, because fear is always a result of being dependent.I'm not sure I follow you here. If a pack of wolves suddenly appears behind me, how is the fear I feel a result of being dependent? I'm dependent on what exactly, on the wolves? On me? On some other people appearing and saving me? If I just hear wolves howling and the hairs on the back of my head suddenly all stand up, where is the dependency? Or when I find a snake in the grass and my palms get all sweaty? When lightning strikes beside my tree? I'm just trying to understand your statement, honestly. Precisely for this kind of fears we are very well equipped. For the rest, not so much. You argue that a bunch of statistical numbers are not meaningful, and for some perils you are right: a careful assessment is better than a generic one. But e.g. with elevators we are not talking about a high risk or a low risk; statistics tell us that casualties due to cabin falls are zero, or so close to zero that they are not meaningful. 6 passenger deaths per year in the US, mostly due to falls into an open shaft and entanglement of clothes into the door. We don't depend on the internals or the people who maintain them; we shouldn't even worry about cabin falls. In short: they are safe devices, in the same league as escalators. When the cabin bumps in its way there should be no reason to be fearful, and yet we cannot avoid our hearts racing. In contrast, with cars we all know that regardless of the condition of driver and car we are dependent on the good will of all other drivers. Even if everything else is in perfect condition, if a drunk driver invades your lane or doesn't stop at a red light you are done. Here statistics and anecdotal evidence tell us that we are in peril every minute we pass in a car. How come we feel cozy and secure in our vehicles? Once more, bad judgment.
Mitigation strategy Posted Feb 3, 2008 18:16 UTC (Sun) by ikm (subscriber, #493) [Link] > I'm not sure I follow you here. If a pack of wolves suddenly appears behind me, how is the fear I feel a result of being dependent? I'm dependent on what exactly, on the wolves? On me? On some other people appearing and saving me? If I just hear wolves howling and the hairs on the back of my head suddenly all stand up, where is the dependency? Or when I find a snake in the grass and my palms get all sweaty? When lightning strikes beside my tree? I'm just trying to understand your statement, honestly. You feel fear because you can't do much about the situation. You're dependent on something else which would resolve the situation. You have to hope that the wolves aren't after you, that you're not stumping on a snake, or that the lightning isn't striking at you. You're dependent on the whimsical mercies of a chance. You're dependent just because you don't seem to be able to resolve the situation yourself. > But e.g. with elevators we are not talking about a high risk or a low risk; statistics tell us that casualties due to cabin falls are zero, or so close to zero that they are not meaningful. Who cares about what they say? I've met many people who were saying many different things. Why would I want to believe? Let me have my own statistics and draw my own conclusions. What I know is that falling from great heights is dangerous and can be lethal, that metals are very tough, that the elevator's engines are very powerful and can easily tear me apart -- that's what I KNOW. Don't you think it kinda contradicts what these statistics of yours say? Why would I want to believe them then?! You can say that nuclear power plants are safe, and I would never agree -- just because they inherently contain sources of dangers, no matter how perfectly confined they are. Same with elevators. While I personally don't have any elevators' fears, I assert that the line of thought I presented is totally legitimate and has its merits, and I also think this is the way any living being makes its assessments. > In contrast, with cars we all know that regardless of the condition of driver and car we are dependent on the good will of all other drivers. Even if everything else is in perfect condition, if a drunk driver invades your lane or doesn't stop at a red light you are done. I would disagree here. A good driver is not just someone who knows how to turn left and right and how to tell red from green, but a person who actually knows his stuff, sees problems coming, sees if other persons don't behave right on the road, anticipates everything and doesn't get into problems as a result. What you push here is that we should trust somebody who is presumably much more clever than us. What I push is that, first of all, we should trust ourselves, and if somebody wants to earn our trust, he should indeed earn it first. I personally see no problems in how people do their assessments -- they might not always be right, but they are doing the right thing. If they are wrong, it's probably lack of information -- but you can't just shove this information down their throats and expect them to accept it. Most probably, it will be rejected as being too different from what they know already -- and that's the right thing for them to do.
Mitigation strategy Posted Feb 3, 2008 22:25 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] You point at a good strategy to make our irrational fears go away, or at least keep them under control: not knowing how something works can make us fearful. Therefore, learning how things work can take us a long way to controlling our fears. And that is exactly what engineers have been doing since before History started: learning how things work and then controlling them. That is how people learned to build boats and entered the sea; how they built huge temples which defied our sense of stability; and even how they built those megaliths which still amaze us.The point is, even if you know the Bernoulli effect by heart, even if you understand the principles of aeronautics and have compiled flight crash statistics yourself, you may not be able to stop your palms from sweating the first time your plane lifts in the air. Or even the hundredth time. Still, it's not that bad for a grassland monkey! :D
Mitigation strategy Posted Feb 4, 2008 0:40 UTC (Mon) by ikm (subscriber, #493) [Link] All fears are very rational in the end, so if your palms still sweat after the 100th time, try another approach at understanding what you're actually afraid of :)
Mitigation strategy Posted Feb 7, 2008 17:09 UTC (Thu) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link] I wouldn't like to fly with a pilot that doesn't fear what he does. In other words, a mistake can kill. The fact that this fear is real and vivid and acted upon makes air travel as safe as it is. People act foolishly when afraid because they don't know what to do. On the other hand people regularly are hurt or killed at their workplace because they didn't know that they should be afraid. How many times has people in this readership been afraid to apply a change to a working system? The fear moves you to double check, get other input, set up a test system, whatever. Personally, when I fear things that I encounter regularly, I find out what to do. Not to allay fear, but to know how to act safely. Derek (who in his work is regularly in situations that could kill him)
|
|||||||||||||